All four will be on display at Venus Optics' booth at the Beijing P&E Imaging fair. But in case you don't happen to be in Beijing between May 3rd and the 6th, read on to find out what these lenses are all about.

Laowa 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 FE Zoom

The Laowa 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 FE Zoom is the aforementioned "world's widest zoom lens for Sony full-frame E-mount cameras." According to Venus Optics, the lens was primarily designed for travel photography, offering an angle of view between 102° and 130° in a package that weighs only 496g and is less than 100cm in length.

Inside the 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 you'll find 14 elements in 10 groups, including two aspherical elements and one extra-low dispersion element. The lens' aperture can be de-clicked using a switch on the lens barrel, and if you like using filters, you'll be happy to know the lens features a rear filter slot built to handle 37mm filters.

This Laowa 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 FE Zoom will be available only in Sony FE mount.

Laowa 100mm F2.8 2X Ultra Macro APO

Next up, the Laowa 100mm F2.8 2:1 Ultra Macro APO is... well... it's an ultra-macro lens that offers a maximum magnification of 2x with a minimum focusing distance of just 24.7cm. The lens can focus from 2:1 macro to infinity, and promises "crystal [clear] sharpness image in both macro and tele distances" thanks to an optical design consisting of 12 elements in 10 groups.

The Laowa 100mm F2.8 2X Ultra Macro APO is the only lens released today that isn't limited to a single mount. When it ships, you'll be able to get it in Canon EF, Nikon F, Pentax K, and Sony FE mounts.

Laowa 17mm F4 GFX Zero-D

Third party options for the mirrorless medium format Fujifilm GFX camera are still somewhat limited—at least compared to more popular mounts like Sony FE, not to mention Canon EF or Nikon F. So it was a nice surprise to see Venus Optics release the 17mm F4 GFX Zero-D.

The 14mm F4 GFX is another of Venus Optics Zero-D lenses, offering a full-frame equivalent focal length of 13mm and a field of view of 113° with "close-to-zero distortion." The lens is made up of 21 elements in 14 groups, including two aspherical and three extra-low dispersion elements. Venus Optics claims this lens is "ideally suited for landscape, architecture and interior photography."

Laowa 4mm F2.8 Fisheye MFT

Last but not least, we have the only Micro Four Thirds lens of the bunch: the Laowa 4mm F2.8 Fisheye MFT. This circular fisheye lens offers a 210° angle of view at a full-frame equivalent 8mm focal length. Made up of 7 elements in 6 groups, the ultra-portable lens weighs just 135g to keep your MFT kit light and agile.

Here are detailed specs for all four lenses:

All of the new lenses are expected to ship "in mid/late 2018" according to Venus Optics, although "exact ship date and pricing are to be confirmed."

All 4 lenses will make their debut in the coming Beijing P&E Imaging Fair.

Anhui China, Apr 20, 2018 – Venus Optics, the camera lenses manufacturer who had previously launched a number of unique Laowa camera lenses, is proud to announce 4 new and unique lenses.

Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom

Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra Macro APO

Laowa 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D

Laowa 4mm f/2.8 Fisheye MFT

Laowa 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 FE Zoom

This lens is currently the widest zoom lens available for Sony full frame E-mount cameras. Designed primarily for travel photography, Venus optics have managed to compress the size to smallest in its class, less than 10 inch (<100cm) and only 1.1 pounds (<500g). The 102° (18mm) to 130° (10mm) angle of view provides flexibility for photographers to compose landscape or architecture photos with ease. The lens houses with 14 elements in 10 groups with 2 aspherical elements & 1 extra-low dispersion element to deliver exceptional performance. It can focus as close as 15cm for some mini-macro shooting. A rear filter slot is included to fit with 37mm filter. Click/clickless aperture can be toggled by the switch on the lens barrel.

Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra Macro APO

Followed by the success of the Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2:1 Macro, the 100mm f/2.8 2:1 Macro is the 2nd member of Laowa 2:1 macro line-up. This new 100mm lens can cover full frame sensor size and focus from 2:1 magnification to infinity. The wide magnification range allows macro photographers to capture subject at any sizes. This 100mm portrait lens also features an apochromatic (APO) characteristic that no chromatic aberration can be found. The 12 elements in 10 groups optics design delivers a crystal sharpness image in both macro and tele distances. Canon EF / Nikon AI / Pentax K / Sony FE mounts are available.

Laowa 17mm f/4 GFX Zero-D

This is currently the widest available native lens option for Fujifilm G-mount cameras. The new Laowa 17mm f/4 GFX has a field of view equivalent to 13mm in 35mm format (113°). Featuring a close-to-zero distortion and 86mm filter thread, this lens is ideally suited for landscape, architecture & interior photography. The 21 elements in 14 groups design with 2pcs of aspherical & 3pcs of Extra-low dispersion elements successfully help to control the distortion & chromatic aberrations to the minimal.

Availability

All four lenses will be available for trial at Venus Optics’ booth (T225) in Beijing P&E Imaging fair during 3rd-6th May 2019. They are expected to be shipped in mid/late 2018. Exact shipping date and pricing are to be confirmed.

Comments

To guys that need super wide and are not happy about fisheye distortion: there is a defishing plugin for photoshop and LR. I had the old version and it was marvelous. Spheres near the edges of an image are rendered oblong by a fisheye and are restored to spheres with the plugin meaning peoples heads are restored to natural proportions. Magic. Try imadio.com. I am NOT an affiliate.The alternative to avoiding smearing of edges of ultrawide images is making a panorama with an ultrawide and correct it in photoshop with the Adaptive Wide Angle filter: you can set lines that define linear perspective, vertical or horizontal components in a picture. It works nicely but is time consuming. The filter is aware of the curved nature of the original imge and will e.g. follow a curved lamppost, so it can be restored to linear and vertical. It is much easier to do than to desribe.

I wonder if a good “traditional” macro lens (Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro or Vivitar Series 1) with bellows or extension tubes will offer similar results (2X magnification at comparable IQ). Of course, this setup is cumbersome and one will lose the ability fo focus to infinity but who needs it when shooting Ultra Macro subjects?

Well, I don't shoot Ultra Macro in a studio. So, when I'm in the "wild", many interesting things can happen fast and at longer than close-up distances. Like that weasel riding a woodpecker (real thing :) google it). "Infinity" only indicates the ability of the full focusing range, which you may not ever need for most things you are shooting, not only closeups. But if my Sigma with extension tubes could focus up to 10 meters, then it would be insanely convenient. I can (and sometimes I do) use a 2x TC to double the magnification without affecting the working distance (which makes it a 300mm F5.6 2x Macro with full focusing range), but then I'm sacrificing some image quality.

Without extension tubes my Sigma can focus past infinity. Cropping doesn't simulate anything really. It would still depend on the pixel density of the sensor. And I'm not buying expensive photography gear for producing tiny little snapshots.

I’m not sure why you would use a Macro lens to focus to infinity. I don’t know how the statement about Sigma focusing to 10 meters without extension tubes was included in my statement above but it’s certainly wrong. All Sigma Macro lenses and similar lenses made by other manufacturers can focus to infinity. I do understand the possible reasons one would want a Macro lens having 2:1 or even higher magnification in case this is one of the main lenses he is using.Further, cropping a 36 megapixels image by 50% in each direction would result in a 9 megapixel image taken with a pretty sharp lens. I’ve seen 18x24 inch prints taken with Canon D20 (8 megapixels) and a Canon Macro lens and they’ve shown very small details of the object and looked very sharp.

I never said that I need to focus up to infinity. But I often need quite a bit more working distance, than just a few inches.Heavy cropping (and being happy about it) is very subjective. I do crop sometimes, but the image quality drops way below my expectations for the class of cameras I'm using. However, many (?most) people don't care about image quality differences, just because virtually any modern camera is too much for their needs. Which is why we are seeing so many "format wars" in photography forums and commenting sections (because of careless people preaching ignorance).If 9mp is good enough for you - fine. But don't tell me that it is just as good. Because it isn't. And if you can't see the difference, then you have to realize that, maybe, 'not seeing it' is the actual problem. Not the "annoying" internet people who actually can see the difference (for various reasons like better printer, monitor or eyes). For me, sharp details and quality details are different things.

I fully agree that the ability to focus to longer distancesc is a must even for Macro lenses. As I’ve said most if not all Macro lenses I know of can focus to infinity.A good photo color printer has 300 DPI resolution. For 12x18 inch print this translates into 19.44 million dots meaning that no resolution difference above 20 Megapixels can theoretically be seen on a 12 by 18 inch print. Computer monitor resolution is much lower. For example a Full HD (1920 by 1080) monitor has only 2.07 megapixels.One can only see what is there.

Somehow you are entirely missing the fact that a single pixel does not represent a single dot or detail with 100% accuracy. One may print a sharp mess at 300 DPI and enjoy the results. Me? - No, thank you.Same thing with monitors. Downsampling a 20mp image down to 2mp, purifies detail and the quality of that smaller image. I prefer big UHD displays and 20mp never seem to be too much for that. Actually, (IMHO) 20mp APS-C (or smaller) cannot really deliver fully adequate quality images for 40"(ish) 3840x2160 screen (perhaps with an exception of some very good lighting conditions). Unfortunately, there are people who love using the "add noise" slider in photoshop, so everything I'm saying might seem like white noise to them. Cropping magnifies all of the imperfections and (pixel peeping aside) I don't want to see this color-guessing noise-fest mosaic in a final image. Which is why I'm buying big cameras in the first place.

A pixel is the smallest element of a sensor (or display) having one of the three primary (R,G,B) colors. A dot is the smallest element a printer can put on paper and it also has one of the primary colors (some printers have more than three different primary color inks, however). One pixel can be represented by several dots of the same color but not vice versa.The smallest theoretically possible detail of an image can be seen as two neighboring pixels of different colors. Noise, however, is a different issue. It can not be eliminated but it can be reduced by increasing the pixel size, reducing the gain (ISO) and replacing single pixels of different color by the color of its neighbors in software.The best monitors available today are big screen 4K OLED TV’s having about 8 megapixels and yes, you can see the noise on them and smaller monitors as well. The lowest noise can be achieved by combining large (full size) sensor with low pixel count (everything else being the same).

And I don't care how many dots there are if they represent ZERO information :).Huge 4K OLED TVs are not the best monitors. I think that 50"(ish) is the limit for 4K resolution monitor. I mean 4K resolution is too low for larger panels. Mine is 43" 4K IPS. But 38" or 40" is fine too and sometimes I feel like an extra 5" wouldn't hurt :).

They are not made to be used as monitors. It seems to me that you have no idea how better sharpness and colors look like. Unnaturally vivid and extremely bright isn't better. In fact, you could start going blind in a year if you'll spend much time in front of such a "monitor".

The 100mm Apo Macro that focuses from 2:1 to infinity and offers tight control of CAs sounds like a remarkable achievement. We don't know the full specs yet, but I'll be interested to see its images. It's not available in Fuji mount, but if the promise is borne out, adapters are cheap

This is just so cool... I'm waiting for delivery of the 9mm for Fuji. A wide lens for the GFX is outstanding! Maybe Sigma will wake up and make lenses for Fuji now that they have some competition. :-) Anyway, all good news.

They originally made lenses with the rings turning in the right direction, somewhere along the way they decided to reverse that direction, even on ordinary (read non-Nikon F) mounts. I'm certainly not going to buy any of their backwards products.

Using teleconverters and focal reducers and filters you can "design" a LOT" of lenses out of one 50mm, including a 35mm wide lens and an 85mm portrait tele and a 100mm tele, and a tiny MFD macro, 5 lenses... buy they're just going to all suck in image quality and you'll go but the 5 dedicated lenses.

teleconverters will degrade the image it is well known but a good focal reducer can actually lessen a lenses defects when adapted cromatic aberr and other common problems of a ff lens used on apsc sees often improvements

painting speedboosters with the same brush as teleconverters only spreads early misinformation and frankly show a misunderstanding of the improvments good speedboosters provide here is a nice comparison of the olympus 45mm 1.8 m43 lens against a nikon 50mm slr lens ..surprise..the nikon is sharper and more contrasty in the center fully open and even stiopped down at the edge the equiv or the oly lens which is remarkable

m43 lenses have no appealgiven they are designed for so tiny (heavily cropped) image circlewhen one looks at the whole fov on an m43it's like looking only at the center of an FF (less so on APSC)

by the time one is looking at only the center of an m43one is looking at a very tiny point on an FF (slightly larger point of APSC)

since focus reducers help make the fov widerlateral chromatic aberrations are diminished in that smaller fov image circleby pulling in a wider fov into a smaller area

in order to offer a valid comparisonit makes only sense to compare identical sensors sizes to each othernot compare heavily cropped sensor image circles to those double the diameter, and thus much larger sensor area coverage

it's pointless to compare different sensor sizes when their resolution differs as well

due to the mission of a focal reducer different sensors will always be involved in such comparisons , secondly m43 lenses are designed for m43 sensors period

focal reducers for apsc also work well , such comparisons are valid due to the very purpose of a focal reducer

we are comparing the quality of a lens output is the comparison i linked its a nikon lens with metabones speedbooster vs a native 45mm olympus design of a very fine and sharp af lens versus a nikon legacy optic , compared on the same sensor

im sure all your calculations are correct , but for me its a simple understanding that the image circle needs to cover a rectangle about 1\4 the size of a 24x36 sensor .... i think tiny is a bit unfair , but indeed it is fractional ,

But, I'm still not a fan of how stretched things get at the edges most ultrawide lenses. It seems all suffer from this problem to some degree or another.

And before you all tell me I'm an idiot for not understanding optics or perspective, I am NOT talking about ultrawide perspective distortion, or ultrawide barrel/mustache distortion.

To see what I mean, grab an ultra-wide lens, and go to your nearest grand vista that has a clear view of a very distant scene. Record a video of slowly panning side-to-side of a near-infinity view.

You may not notice it at first, but look closely at how rapidly subjects at the edge of the frame "move" into view, compared to how the same subject moves as it passes the center of the image frame. Again, this will happen even with a distant, eye-level subject.

Simply put, the lens' total angle of view is not equally distributed from edge to edge. The edges are stretched.

That's how a perspective projection works. The wider the field of view the more the center field-of-view is shrunk and the view is dominated by the edges. If you made a lens that projected 180 degrees, the last fraction of a degree would take up an infinite amount of the image (obviously impossible). If you projected a 179 degree image, the last degree (178 to 179 takes up almost half of the view.

As you are experiencing, these wide field-of-views are unnatural at normal viewing distances. We're not used to seeing these kind of projections.

I think you may like the look of a mercator projection better. This has the same angle per pixel in the horizontal direciton, but a perspective projection in the vertical direction. (This is why maps that use this projection make antarctica impossibly huge, but everything on the equator is undistorted).

It's a problem of converting a spherical image into a flat plane. You might be aware of the problems in dimensions with the Mercator projection - the stuff close to the poles is oversized, versus the landmasses closer to the equator, which are accurately represented. With an UWA lens it's the same.Until the advent of correctly-curved TVs, curved sensors, or of supercomputer cameras that can use the footage of multiple normal lenses to create a live "wide video" view, we're screwed with perspective distortion. It just can't be worked around.

It's all part of the ultra wide perspective distortion, along with the play in size of objects in the foreground/background, lines converging if not kept level, etc. As mentioned, it's not really a problem per se, they're all gonna do it until a radical change in how we capture and view images happens.

of course anything that is set oriented facing perpendicular to the camera off center will "stretch"

but EVERYTHING set flat on SINGLE FLAT PLANE will look "normal" (unstretched) even though we know every object farther off from center iscloser on nearer edgefarther away on far edge

thus, a perfect circle (all on the same flat plane parallel to sensor) at the corners and edges, appear perfectly circular (all diameters are equal) in whole fov

but perfect spheres at the corners and edges, MUST then appear as perfect ELLIPSOIDS, because our perspective hides the flat plane, and only shows "maximum hemisphere" where its circle is NOT on any common flat plane shared with all other spheres in fov

I'm fine with the minimal distortion (it's not much more/less than that of other UWAs which simply correct it automatically IIRC), the vignetting wide open (or even just a couple stops in) is definitely objectionable for some usage cases...

I'm not sure about corner sharpness, some reviews painted it in a really good light - about equal with the zooms even by f2.8, but mine is definitely worse off than my zoom. I've been meaning to pick up a second copy to see what I see...

I don't see them just making a larger version of the same lens tho, if that's even possible without some serious redesign. They're getting into zooms now tho, so maybe we'll get a zoom, or an ultra ultra wide. Shoot some people are still clamoring for something that's actually not quite as wide but still as small (Kowa & Voigtlander 8-10mm options are far larger).

Can't please everyone! I'm glad we got the 7.5/2 at least but wouldn't mind seeing them do more M4/3.

Do these lenses, especially the 100 macro, have automatic diaphram capability? A manual diaphram is not a problem for many uses, but for a macro lens at high magnifications, I want an automatic diaphram, so as to avoid having to touch the diaphram control ring after focusing.

Focusing brightness isn't the only issue. Assuming a lens with minimal or no focus shift upon stopping down (admittedly not always the case), focusing wide open allows easier precise placement of focus plane, (which then expands when stopping down)

I was about to make the same point. Those who do not do field macro photography often fail to understand the difficulty. The suggestion of using live view is not very realistic with a DSLR unless you are using the camera on a tripod, or have an EVF magnifier on.

The other limitation of stopped down focusing that which often isn't understood by none field macro photographers is this. It is much easier to understand where the plane of focus is with wide open metering. If you are photographing an active insect or spider you are often looking for a particular pose, angle or alignment of the plane of focus. This may only happen very briefly, and you need to anticipate it. It's is harder to know where the precise plane of focus is if the lens is stopped right down.

Fair enough. I prefer focussing wide open and stopping down because of the increased precision, as you say, but I have never owned a camera and macro lens that automatically stops down upon taking the photo, so I've always had to stop down myself either before or after composition. Typically the DoF is so incredibly small at these magnifications, even when stopped down to f/11 or more, that I just end up physically wiggling the camera back and forth 1-2mm and abusing the electronic shutter burst mode in order to nail focus.

The 100mm macro interests me, especially if it's abberation-free like the 105 STF. However, I wonder if the Sony FE version will just be a Canon with a permanently attached dumb adapter stuck on the bottom like with the 105 STF? Kinda kills some of the usefulness when ours is 3" longer than the other versions and looks like a 300mm or 400mm lens.

The Sony E version will definitely be 26mm longer than the Canon EF version: since the optical formula is the same the last element has to be at the exact same distance of the sensor plane, whatever the flange to sensor distance.

That's my point... it's not really designed for Sony. It's designed for Canonikon and retrofitted to Sony. The same lens designed for Sony (and other mirrorless mounts) would be shorter. It's not a huge deal at 26mm, but it's no different than just buying a Canon and sticking a Fotasy adapter on it. Still, it's nice they are doing it, so at least you know you'll get infinity focus without any wobble, decentering, etc.

Venus Optics is just on fire with the useful new lenses, recently. They're filling holes in the market while other lensmakers are coming out with products that already have three or four competing options. I really like what I see here.

Maybe, but they're a new company and I can absolutely understand why they'd want to stick to manual lenses at first. They're much simpler and cheaper to design, and the lessons they learn here will still be relevant if and when they move into automatics. And they are certainly finding plenty of ways to innovate within the realm of manual lenses. As long as they keep coming out with exciting, quality glass, what's to complain about?

This is a great point. I never bought/upgraded a lens that has the same FOV/DOF for some feature or so... I buy lenses I don't have. And now? There's not much that everyone doesn't offer. Finding new FOV/DOF optical combinations is a huge driving force towards some lenses, like an 18-35/2.8, 24-35/2, 100-400/IS, 10mm FF, etc

China is leading the march to affordable lenses .... Venus Optics/Laowa will save the decline of outrageous exorbitant pricing of dSLRs and Mirrorless .....

But ... are these lenses sharp? If compared to top-notch circa 80s Nikon it has the same sharpness, contrast and color fidelity.

Wait ... Hey, China, where did you get the technology? How did you get it? This is the problem when companies outsource their manufacturing to China .... they copy it, too! Better, cheaper and affordable.

Mariano Pacifico your comments and questions are cliched, out of date, uninformed and incorrect. Laowa product entirely original and unique high quality lenses. Their 12mm f2.8 has less optical distortion that the lorded Nikon 14-24 while being considerably wider.

I'm super pumped about that 10-18 zoom. If it's optically as good as other recent Laowa lenses, then it will be a big hit with hiking landscape photographers in particular. Much lighter and smaller than the Sony 12-24, and wider to boot.

Once again, Laowa pushing limits. 10-18mm on FF is just straight up absurd. Absolutely ridiculously wide. The long end of that zoom is already well into ultrawide territory. The fact that it's only 500g is also really impressive.

It's a shame that the M4/3 lens here is a circular fisheye, which I can't imagine anyone actually asked for, but the other options are pretty cool, in an extreme sort of way.

I'm sorry, but the gimmicky nature of circular fisheyes just really takes me out of the image. Some of those photos are effective in and of themselves (particularly the images of the ceilings, because of the repetitious patterns), but a lot of them just feel like the photo has been forced into a circle for some reason.

Meh, I didn't catch that it was a circular FE upon first reading... I was kinda excited for a decent FE pancake, but circular makes it even more nichey than a FE already is. I'll stick with my RokiBowYang.

The FE is not a fisheye, the fisheye is the MFT lens. And if I shot MFT I could see myself getting that lens and just defishing the photos that come out of it; 8mm equivalent on MFT is crazy, crazy wide.

There's something very screwy about the sizing info for the 10-18 zoom!Is it less than 10 inches long, or less than 100mm long -- I'm pretty sure that it must be less than 100cm long -- I know some wide-angle lenses are big but a metre????

There is no "Sony FE mount". It's Sony E mount. Yes these are FF lenses, but these lenses can be used on both Sony APS-C and FF cameras. Stating that it's "Sony FE mount" seems to imply that these lenses can only be used on Sony FF mirrorless bodies. I'm sure there will be plenty of users who will be using these lenses on their Sony APS-C mirrorless bodies.

The term FE-mount is incredibly useful as it denotes that the lens actually covers full-frame.

Do people get all hot and bothered that Nikon describes their lenses as DX and FX even though they use the same mount? And then of course there's CX, which uses a totally different mount. Whatever will we do...?

While you're technically correct, this is still a useful distinction. Technically it should be called an FE lens, not an FE mount lens. Still, the F in FE is very handy, and is analogous to the difference between F and G lenses in Nikon. If you know your topic, then then the F vs G designator tells you about an important feature of the lens. Likewise the FE vs E is important, although, yes, it should refer to the lens and not the mount.

@Androole - "Do people get all hot and bothered that Nikon describes their lenses as DX and FX?"

No, because that's accurate usage. Nikon has DX and FX lenses, but both use F-mount. Improper usage would be to say that a particular Nikon lens is a DX-mount lens, since no such mount exists. Likewise, there's no such thing as FE-mount. It's an FE lens for E-mount. It's like saying, "It's an FX lens for F-mount." Or just say "It's an FE lens" (rather than referring to a non-existent "FE-mount"), since FE already implies that this lens is a full frame lens for Sony E mount (F = full frame, E = Sony E mount, hence FE).

...and from a practical point of view, how many APS-C E-mount users do you know who are falling all over themselves to buy $1000+ FF lenses for their crop cameras? And do people researching purchases that start at $500+ really not even read the product description to check compatibility?

Heck, it would probably be for the best if the $800 Zeiss 35/f2.8 couldn't physically fit their A6000, so they'd know to get the half-price, much faster, and stabilized 35/1.8 OSS that's basically the same size and weight instead...

@Androole - "and from a practical point of view, how many APS-C E-mount users do you know who are falling all over themselves to buy $1000+ FF lenses for their crop cameras?"

Haha, are you kidding me? People do it ALL THE TIME with DSLRs! Why would it be any different for mirrorless? For example, here's an old snap of my Canon 60D next to my Canon 35/1.4L, 24 TS-E and 45 TS-E (TS = tilt-shift) lenses. All three of these lenses are $1000+ FF lenses that I used on my crop camera!

BTW, the two other lenses in the picture, the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L, are also FF lenses, but they're <$1000. Still, they are full frame lenses! So it's absurd to think that APS-C users don't buy FF lenses, even expensive ones! One reason we do so is so that we have forward compatibility with FF bodies, should we decide to upgrade or add FF. I used both APS-C and FF Canon DSLRs, so "from a practical point of view" it made sense to have FF lenses. The same goes for Sony mirrorless.

Also, I can't imagine buying a $1200 35mm/1.4 to go on a 60D, when you could get a 6D and a $100 50/1.8 for a similar price and get much better results in essentially every way. And going for the 17-40L just to get a vaguely useful focal length, rather than the much-better and less expensive EF-S 17-55/f2.8, or again a 6D + 24-70/f4, which again would give dramatically better results...

Once you buy just two expensive, heavy, awkward FF lenses to use on your crop camera, you should really reconsider your choices and just switch to FF. Your wallet will thank you, and your photos will be better.

@Impulses - Call me crazy, but I think news articles should be accurate and correct. Plus, I do think that when you make up something such as FE-mount, some people might actually (and fairly) think that there is such a thing as FE-mount that is different from E-mount. It just creates unnecessary confusion. Call it an FE lens. Simple. No need to make up a new "FE-mount" that does not exist.

People using a system where the smaller format is treated as a redheaded stepchild (read CaNikon and now Sony) do it, or people adapting glass when there isn't a credible native solution... People using other (granted, possibly less popular) systems only do it to a much lesser degree. Maybe you're right and APS-C users do need to be saved from themselves and the way their system's manufacturer treats their crop offerings. :P

@Androole - That's one person's opinion, but in today's day and age, FF cameras are getting more affordable and attainable than ever. So the likelihood that someone might start with APS-C and someday decide to buy a FF camera is more likely than some people seem to realize. And while we regularly upgrade cameras, lenses are "forever" (ie, we tend to keep them indefinitely). Therefore, "from a practical point of view", it makes a lot of sense to buy certain lenses in FF. It's a one-time purchase that can be used on either FF or APS-C bodies.

@Impulses - "I've seen this semantics discussion pop up far more often than someone confused by what's an FE mount... ;)"

That is why it is the role of sites such as dpreview to educate people, not propagate semantic confusion. Believe it or not, there are people who come to these sites to gain knowledge, particularly on issues pertaining to equipment. And if dpreview is spreading erroneous information, such as telling people that there is an FE-mount, or a DX-mount (FYI, neither exists), then they are doing their readers a disservice.

For example, this "semantic" idiocy went on with the term "full frame". Some people argued that m4/3 was "full frame" since lenses matched to m4/3, they argued, were "full frame" relative to the sensor/lens ratio of coverage. But dpreview and other sites did not propagate this erroneous usage, because it wasn't correct! So you combat semantic confusion by educating and sticking to proper usage. You don't combat that confusion by propagating it.

Yeah, literally cannot imagine why anyone would spend $5000 on high-end lenses for a different format and then mount them to a crippled $1000 body, making every single one of those lenses worse and less functional.

It's one thing if you've got a high-end crop body exclusively for super-telephoto use, because you want higher-pixel density and higher frame rates with your 300mm/f2.8. That's not at all what you're describing, though.

No, it's not called "masochism." I used to shoot weddings. I shot with both APS-C and FF DSLRs (very few wedding photographers will shoot a wedding with just one camera). Both play their part. A lot of people shoot with both APS-C and FF bodies. Do you have just one pair of shoes? Do you have just one car? Not everyone has just one camera, or uses just one format. I'd say masochism is putting artificial limitations on what you can or can't use, or not being able to see the benefits of everything. There are benefits to having an APS-C body, and there are benefits to having a FF body. Each has their pros and cons. That's why I've always used both. I even use m4/3. It's not a one-size-fits-all world we live in.

@Androole"Yeah, literally cannot imagine why anyone would spend $5000 on high-end lenses for a different format and then mount them to a crippled $1000 body, making every single one of those lenses worse and less functional."

Totally wrong. Using FF lenses on an APS-C body does not make it worse or less functional. In reality, APS-C sensors crop out the outer edges of lenses-- the edges are where lenses typically perform the worst. My 24mm TS-E and 45mm TS-E full frame lenses performed excellently on my crop bodies. And as for functionality, that depends. For example, if telephoto is what you want, using a FF lens on a crop body increases its telephoto "functionality" by giving you more telephoto "reach." It's not all black and white. There are plenty of reasons for people to use both APS-C and FF bodies, in conjunction with APS-C and FF lenses. If you "literally cannot imagine" why anyone would do that, then you clearly lack imagination. I recommend you broaden your perspective.

@Androole - No, telephoto is not the "one real advantage of using crop cameras." There are a variety of advantages. Likewise, there are a variety of advantages to FF cameras. Both have their pros and cons, and these pros/cons are not just one thing. It's a variety of pros and cons.

"Using FF lenses on an APS-C body does not make it worse or less functional." Yeah, that's just wishful thinking. You crop the corners and their pronounced aberrations but you still forgot to account for 1.6x magnification of the center which also magnifies the lens imperfections. Every full frame lens mounted to high enough megapixel APS-C sensor scores less than on full frame camera. Never mind that it's stupid to buy larger, heavier glass which projects most of the light around the sensor. Unless you have no equivalent which is very rare these days.

@Raziel Orlando - Not all Sony FE lenses are G Master lenses. G Master denotes Sony's top-level premium lenses. But FE simple denotes that a lens covers full frame. It does not denote a level of quality, nor does it denote a specific "FE" lens mount, because there is not "FE-mount." Likewise, people should not ever use DX-mount or FX-mount when talking about Nikon because those don't exist either. Nikon has F-mount, onto which both DX and FX lenses mount.

This is why consistent, correct usage of these terms is so important. If people just use them however they want, it can create confusion. We should also remember that we can not assume that everyone knows that there is no such thing as FE-mount, and that everyone knows what these things mean. There are a lot of new users entering the market all the time who are unfamiliar with what these things mean. If we improperly use these terms, it's not helpful at all.

Buying FF lenses for an APS-C camera is like aspirationally buying a $100/mo gym membership, a pair of $100 athletic tights, and $250 running shoes to convince yourself you're going to get in shape. Except that you haven't even started running yet.

@jnd - Like it or not, there are a LOT of people using FF glass on APS-C bodies. That's simply a reality. Most lenses in the market are NOT even made available in APS-C, and most likely never will be. They are ONLY made available in FF. That's because FF lenses work perfectly fine on APS-C bodies.

People really need to get over the idea that it's such a terrible idea to use FF lenses on APS-C bodies. We've been doing it for as long as APS-C ILC's have been around, and we will continue to do so. This cross-compatibility creates tremendous flexibility and freedom. A 70-200/2.8 lens works just as well and effectively on an APS-C body as it does on a FF body. And there are countless APS-C users in the world using this lens on their APS-C bodies right now. The absurd notion that, "Oh, I can't use this on an APS-C body because it's going to make this lens suck" is silly, hahaha!

@Androole - Like it or not, there are countless people using FF lenses on APS-C bodies right this moment.

BTW, people buy and do things for "aspirational" reasons all the time. I really don't see the point of your argument. I don't see that being such a terrible thing. But purely from the practical point of view, it makes perfect sense to buy FF lenses if there is the possibility that a FF camera may be in your future. I use Sony APS-C mirrorless. All my lenses are currently APS-C E-mount lenses. "Aspirationally", I plan on getting a Sony FF in the future. I don't think it's a stupid idea to start opting for buying FF lenses as opposed to buying more APS-C lenses.

Ultimately, it's really about maximizing compatibility, future-proofing, and getting the most long-term bang for your buck. Buying a FF lens hits all of those points. It's not for everyone, but it certainly is for some people.

It's only good for long-term bang for buck if you're fine with either having an inappropriate focal length that you don't want for one system or the other, or compromising your composition to fit your equipment.

If you want better photos and sound financial planning, buy the correct APS-C lenses used, and then sell them when you move to FF. And then buy the appropriate lenses for that system. Don't muck about trying to think of a useful compromise that you pretend "won't hurt your photography (or your wallet, or your back) that much."

@Androole - No, it's not black and white. There are plenty of FF lenses that I own for my Canon DSLR system that I would not see any advantage to having as APS-C lenses. At all. My Canon FF lenses currently are: 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-200/4L, 17-40/4L, 24 TS-E, 45 TS-E. I don't see the point of having any of these lenses as APS-C lenses. They all perform superbly on both APS-C and FF bodies. I only have one APS-C Canon DSLR lens, the 10-22 EF-S. People really need to get over the erroneous notion that FF lenses aren't "appropriate" for APS-C bodies, or that they are a "compromise."

@Androole - BTW, I see that you are apparently an m4/3 user? Now I know where your attitude is coming from, hahaha. m4/3 users only have the option of that one format: m4/3. You don't even have the option of lenses that cover larger formats! But that's not the case with other systems that offer both APS-C and FF. We have more flexibility. I should note that I'm also an m4/3 user as well, so don't think I have a bias against m4/3. Here is my custom Oly m4/3:

Format flexibility is a funny term for masking the fact that you're using larger than necessary glass on APS-C bodies and the companies making said bodies (outside of Fuji) are just trying to nudge people over to FF... Yeah I shoot M4/3 too, feel free to call out my bias, I'm just not seeing the big advantage you allude to.

At least third parties (and Sony prior to the A7 line) sort of filled in the holes for APS-C on E mount. Wide prime options for CaNikon APS-C just plain out suck... If I jumped to another small format system it'd be Fuji because they have a lens lineup that makes sense, if I went larger it'd be FE (just to make your blood boil! ;) ), because I'm already sold on ML.

This is even less about semantics and avoiding confusion for newcomers now and more about each company's business/lineup strategy. :P

Strange to suggest that I "don't have the option of lenses that cover larger formats" with M4/3, as if that were A) accurate in the first place; or B) in some way the reason for my views.

It's a small sensor mirrorless system, I have the option of using literally almost any lens in the world, made for literally almost any format. And I do use a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm/1.4, a Sigma 90mm/f2.8 Macro, and occasionally a Nikkor-O 35mm/f2 (on a 0.71x focal reducer).

...but I use those lenses because they were all dirt, dirt cheap and have great mechanical quality and give me an interesting look. They are definitely compromises, and don't hold a candle to the quality of modern native lenses that are designed for high pixel density sensors (like M4/3 or APS-C).

Agree. FE mount does not exist. When Sony had APS-C a-mount lenses, they were referred to as DT lenses. However nobody called it DT-Mount. It was still A-mount. Why is it different with mirrorless all of a sudden??

If I made the ground and sky, I could name them Ebrahim & Saadawi. And it'd be the correct "terminology". Sony made a unit that comprises of an E mount in front of a FF sensor, and an E mount in front of an APS-C sensor: They called the former FE and the later E. Just to imply the former mount should be used with "F"/"FF" lenses.

I actually agree it's not the best approach but not something to argue about either. Canon's EF mount and EF-S/EF glass is the better approach, separating the mount's name from the sensor behind it.

And yes Sony calls A7 cameras FE mount ones as well as E mount in many brochures and websites, and third-party makers do as well. I do hope they stick to E and add the F for the lenses instead.

^ Where on the page does it say FE-Mount? Scroll down and the table clearly says E-Mount. Now look at the full specifications and it clearly says E-Mount on the first entry. Sony themselves call it the E-Mount in all their official literature, never have they called it FE-Mount. Try to prove otherwise (Pro Tip: You can't).

Correct. The mount should be referred to as E-Mount. Calling it FE-Mount is wrong because there is no such thing as an FE-Mount. FE is only a designation for FF 35mm sensor coverage. Professional lens manufacturers and even websites like dpreview should be using the correct terminology at all times.

I Love Fisheyes! I’ve got six, in different mounts and for different formats. I’ve used the legendary 6 mm Nikkor, another fisheye that can see behind itself. (Good luck keeping your feet or tripod out of the shot!) I’ve never seen a shot from one that couldn’t have been done with a regular 180 degree fisheye. We did a time-lapse for California Pizza Kitchen with the 6 mm Nikkor. We ended up having to blow it up and crop it. We should have just used the 8 mm to start with. These 200+ degree fisheyes just make the image smaller.

The only mFt lens? Well there are no Sony E lenses (yes they can mount the EF lens but the FL becomes less appealing for sure). Moreover: there is no Fuji X-series lens at all. I don't think you can mount any of these on the Canon mirrorless cams let alone the Nikon1 series. So "only" mFT lens gives the wrong impression that mFT is left to the side a bit I feel.I find it quite impressive when I see those lenses side by side and see how incredibly small the mFT lens is. Now sure these are very different lenses all together but the other three differ quite a bit from eachother too, yet they are not too different in size. A 4 mm F2.8 fish eye with that diminuitive size is seems quite a gift, if it performs well, from Laowa to the mFT world. I use their 7,5 mm Venus and it is a fantastic lens. Really well built, sharp and small.

I didn't mean anything by "only MFT lens of the bunch" other than literally saying "of the four lenses released today, this is the only one made for the MFT mount." No different than saying that the GFX lens was the only GFX lens of the bunch.

Definitely wasn't meant as any sort of "judgement" on the micro four thirds system ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.